On 2009-09-16, Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:21:51 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"

It's taken 20W from the mains supply. How is that "free"?

You can't take 20 watts, then get 20 watts worth of use (e.g. CPUs,
processors, spinning discs, etc) out of it, then still have 20 watts
left which is magically converted into heat. That's not how it works.
There are losses at every stage of energy conversion.

You seem to be missing a rather fundamental law of physics - conservation
of energy: you cannot create or destroy energy.

All the energy that goes into a computer remains in existence for ever.
It is merely converted to a different (less useful) form.

The laws of thermodynamics are also applicable - doing useful work
increases the entropy of a system (i.e. produces heat).

--
David Taylor

On Sep 15, 10:26*pm, "Steve Thackery" wrote:
You can tell that I'm not pleased ...

OK, but do you really want a drab, dreary, joyless world where nobody
celebrates anything in case it generates some CO2? *Where we leave our homes
unheated?

Why would you want to do that?

Do you really want every fountain switched off? *

The one at Chatsworth is quite spectacular and doesn't need any
electrical power as I understand it.

Christmas trees with no lights? *

Perfect application for rechargeable solarpowered LED lights. The
nones in may garden still work in winter.

Every light in every city switched off, apart from basic street
lights?

No, only most the ines that are totally unneccessary need to be
switched off.

Should we close down the cinemas, the museums and the art galleries? *They
generate CO2, you know.

So does posting to Usenet.

Do you want to live in the 18th century (but without any coal, of course)?

We have plenty of coal.


I hate the very thought of such a drab world, I'll tell you that for sure..

The only things missing are imagination, vision and some long term
strategic planning.

MBQ

On Sep 16, 1:06*pm, (Zero Tolerance)
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:21:51 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"

wrote:
By your logic, if I leave a Sky+ box on standby, then the 20 watts it
spends on spinning the hard disc is converted into 20 watts of heat.

It is.

No. It's converted into quite a lot of 'work', quite a lot of 'motion'
(or what your earthling mind may know as "force"), and a small amount
- much less than 20 watts net worth - of heat.

No. You really don't have a clue. Yes it does useful work but that
work ultimately generates heat (e.g. due to friction in the bearings,
etc.)


If that were true, it would turn Sky+ into a free energy machine -

It's taken 20W from the mains supply. How is that "free"?

You can't take 20 watts, then get 20 watts worth of use (e.g. CPUs,
processors, spinning discs, etc) out of it, then still have 20 watts
left which is magically converted into heat. That's not how it works.
There are losses at every stage of energy conversion.

Of course you can't, and I never said you could. It takes 20W form the
mains and puts out 20W of heat, foing some useful work in the process.
20 in - 20 out = 0. There's no free energu anywhere in the equation.


which is impossible - breaking every scientific law there is.

I think a few laws were broken when they let you loose on society.

Oh, my mistake, I thought this might be a sensible discussion.

So di I until you joined in.

I'll leave you to it...

Good riddance.

MBQ

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 10:26 pm, "Steve Thackery" wrote:

snip

Christmas trees with no lights?
:
: Perfect application for rechargeable solarpowered
: LED lights.

In Australia!...

"pete" wrote in message
...

[ re Tungsten Filament bulbs and how they contribute to the
heating of a room ]

:
: The problem with the heat from TF bulbs is that it's mostly at
ceiling
: height, since that's where most bulbs hang from. What people
need
: is heat at body (whether seated or standing) height, to keep
them warm.

Not sure what you're trying to get at there (you might have even
been agreeing with me?), if the TF bulb helps to increase the air
temperature at ceiling level above that of the lower level then
more heat (quite possibly at a lower temperature) will remain
were it *is needed* for longer - all heat rises eventually, even
heat given off by under floor heating eventually ends up at
ceiling level if there is no other exit or means of heat exchange
such as cold surfaces or ambient air temperature IYSWIM.
--
Regards, Jerry.

On Sep 16, 3:03*pm, "Jerry"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...
On Sep 15, 10:26 pm, "Steve Thackery" wrote:

snip

Christmas trees with no lights?

:
: Perfect application for rechargeable solarpowered
: LED lights.

In Australia!...

Which of the bit you snipped did you have difficulty with?

MBQ

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:24:10 +0100, Jerry wrote:

"pete" wrote in message
...

[ re Tungsten Filament bulbs and how they contribute to the
heating of a room ]

:
: The problem with the heat from TF bulbs is that it's mostly at
ceiling
: height, since that's where most bulbs hang from. What people
need
: is heat at body (whether seated or standing) height, to keep
them warm.

Not sure what you're trying to get at there (you might have even
been agreeing with me?), if the TF bulb helps to increase the air
temperature at ceiling level above that of the lower level then
more heat (quite possibly at a lower temperature) will remain
were it *is needed* for longer - all heat rises eventually, even
heat given off by under floor heating eventually ends up at
ceiling level if there is no other exit or means of heat exchange
such as cold surfaces or ambient air temperature IYSWIM.

Well, if you have a 100W TF light suspended from the ceiling, the heat
from that bulb will rise to the top of the room. The occupants won't get
any direct benefit from that 100Watts. Not unless they're exceptionally
tall - in which case their heads will get a little warmer.
As you say, you may get some small improveent from that heat adding to
the temperature gradient in the room, but it won't be anything like the
100Watts the bulb is putting out. You'd be far better off putting in a
CFL (or 6) and installing a small fan to move the warm air off the ceiling
if only temporarily, so that it can usefully warm the room's occupants.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:28:53 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed

Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Sep 16, 3:03 pm, "Jerry"

wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in
...
On Sep 15, 10:26 pm, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

snip

Christmas trees with no lights?

:
: Perfect application for rechargeable solarpowered
: LED lights.

In Australia!...

Which of the bit you snipped did you have difficulty with?


Non of it, unlike you (well, what I could understand, what are
"nones", I assume you mean Gnomes?...).

Remember that most people in the UK locate their Christmas trees
inside the house and also have the lights on during the few hours
of effective sunlight most people get (on a good day) at that
time of year (just after the winter equinox, assuming that
everyone keeps to the traditional calibration period), how are
you going to charge a battery connected to and powering the said
lights? I suspect that if you moved your Gnomes into the house
and only put them outside with the cat each night you might not
have the brightest Gnomes on the street come a few days - bit
like you MBQ!

A better way of powering such lights might well be a battery but
one recharged using cheap rate mains electricity during the
night.

"pete" wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:24:10 +0100, Jerry wrote:
:
: "pete" wrote in message
: ...
:
: [ re Tungsten Filament bulbs and how they contribute to the
: heating of a room ]
:
: :
: : The problem with the heat from TF bulbs is that it's mostly
at
: ceiling
: : height, since that's where most bulbs hang from. What people
: need
: : is heat at body (whether seated or standing) height, to keep
: them warm.
:
: Not sure what you're trying to get at there (you might have
even
: been agreeing with me?), if the TF bulb helps to increase the
air
: temperature at ceiling level above that of the lower level
then
: more heat (quite possibly at a lower temperature) will remain
: were it *is needed* for longer - all heat rises eventually,
even
: heat given off by under floor heating eventually ends up at
: ceiling level if there is no other exit or means of heat
exchange
: such as cold surfaces or ambient air temperature IYSWIM.
:
: Well, if you have a 100W TF light suspended from the ceiling,
the heat
: from that bulb will rise to the top of the room. The occupants
won't get
: any direct benefit from that 100Watts. Not unless they're
exceptionally
: tall - in which case their heads will get a little warmer.

People do not heat their person but the room though...

: As you say, you may get some small improveent from that heat
adding to
: the temperature gradient in the room, but it won't be anything
like the
: 100Watts the bulb is putting out. You'd be far better off
putting in a
: CFL (or 6) and installing a small fan to move the warm air off
the ceiling
: if only temporarily, so that it can usefully warm the room's
occupants.

No you would not, the fan will actually cause the ambient
temperature to fail, due to the air movement, you will actually
need to use more heat to keep to the same ambient temperature!
Only use a fan if you have to either distribute heated (or cooled
air) or need air movement for other reasons.
--
Regards, Jerry.

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...

snip
:
: Energy consumption from appliances in standby is
environmentally
: undesirable, and where reasonably possible should be minimised.
:

Rubbish, it might be economically undesirable [1], it makes not
one jot of difference environmentally - the only thing that is
being changed by switching off rather than to stand-by is were
the energy (in this case electricity) is being wasted, by Joe
Blogs at No.26 (or where-ever) or by the frecking great resistor
banks at the power stations...

[2] to the home owner/bill payer
--
Regards, Jerry.

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
No. It's converted into quite a lot of 'work', quite a lot of 'motion'
(or what your earthling mind may know as "force"), and a small amount
- much less than 20 watts net worth - of heat.

Oh for goodness' sake, ZT!! I, amongst others, have tried to explain it
constructively and politely, and yet you still refuse to learn, or even
acknowledge that you have anything to learn!

Here's the straight dope, mate: you don't have a f***ing clue about basic
physics, and it's high time you realised that and showed a bit of
humility.

You can't take 20 watts, then get 20 watts worth of use (e.g. CPUs,
processors, spinning discs, etc) out of it, then still have 20 watts
left which is magically converted into heat. That's not how it works.

No, no, no! That's EXACTLY how it works. Energy is neither created nor
destroyed: it all ends up as heat. An Intel CPU uses 65W of electricity
and generates 65W of heat. A hard disk uses 7W of electricity and
generates 7W of heat. A 100W tungsten filament bulb uses 100W of
electricity and produces 95W of heat and 5W of light. The light bounces
around the room, gets absorbed by all the dark surfaces and re-radiated as
heat.

How many more times must we go through this?

Mr Tolerance, look at Mr Thackery's head. As you can see, steam is coming
out of his ears. This is heat produced as a result of his brain being
overloaded, trying to educate pork.

Bill

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...

Exactly, so avoiding wasting it is a good thing environmentally. It
really is as simple as that.

Sorry, JJ, but I still don't think you understand my argument.

The point is that the savings are much less than the green pundits claim.
Yes, there are savings, and any savings are worthwhile. We don't differ
there.

But by exaggerating the effectiveness of these savings, we mislead the
public into doing the wrong things, and governments into making the wrong
policies.

Government policies are made based upon the claimed or expected benefits.
If they work from bad information, they produce bad policies. I firmly
believe that many environmental policies are bad because they are based on
bad science, or on powerful lobbying, not on good science and solid facts.

Have you heard of Pareto analysis? To over-simplify, you find out what the
big contributors are, and tackle them first, thus making a big difference
early on. If you want to make a big difference you need to tackle the big
stuff. My major concern is that the public now thinks they can save the
planet by using CFLs and switching their telly off at the wall.

It simply isn't true. To save the planet (IF you accept the current
scientific position on anthropogenic global warming) the public will need to
fundamentally alter almost every aspect of their lifestyle, not fart about
switching things off at the wall.

We both agree that every little helps. But when a government bases its
policies on bad science or loud lobbying, then we get bad policies.

Did you know that the figure used by the UK government in the car scrappage
white paper for the CO2 impact of manufacturing a new car is ONE TENTH that
claimed by Ford? If Ford are correct, and making a new car actually
generates ten times as much CO2 as the government believes, then the car
scrappage scheme would be an environmental faux pas. It would be MUCH
better to encourage people to keep their old cars, even though they produce
more CO2 per km.

See what I mean? Bad science and loud lobbying lead to bad policies, and
bad policies lead to us all doing the wrong things to save the planet.

THAT is my main concern.

SteveT

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 at 10:28:53, wrote in
uk.media.tv.misc :

In uk.media.tv.misc Paul Hyett wrote:

Congratulations - you must be the only person in the country who enjoys
reprogramming their VCR/DVD recorder every day...

You must have a very old VCR/DVD recorder. Most modern 'boxes' retain
their settings and programming after being switched off
overnight or for several days. I went away for 7 days and all mine
were OK when powered up again.

My VCR *is* at least 10 years old.
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:12:29 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

Have you heard of Pareto analysis? To over-simplify, you find out what the
big contributors are, and tackle them first, thus making a big difference
early on. If you want to make a big difference you need to tackle the big
stuff. My major concern is that the public now thinks they can save the
planet by using CFLs and switching their telly off at the wall.

60 million people doing anything would easily have a big effect.

--

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:45:14 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
wrote:

You seem to be missing a rather fundamental law of physics - conservation
of energy: you cannot create or destroy energy.

All the energy that goes into a computer remains in existence for ever.
It is merely converted to a different (less useful) form.

The laws of thermodynamics are also applicable - doing useful work
increases the entropy of a system (i.e. produces heat).

I stand thoroughly corrected, and I much appreciate your doing so in a
calmer manner than others here seemed to manage. Thanks.

--

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:13:37 +0100, "Jerry"
wrote:

Remember that most people in the UK locate their Christmas trees
inside the house and also have the lights on during the few hours
of effective sunlight most people get (on a good day) at that
time of year (just after the winter equinox, assuming that
everyone keeps to the traditional calibration period)...

It's the Winter Solstice, not Equinox.
--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:12:29 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
: wrote:
:
: Have you heard of Pareto analysis? To over-simplify, you find
out what the
: big contributors are, and tackle them first, thus making a big
difference
: early on. If you want to make a big difference you need to
tackle the big
: stuff. My major concern is that the public now thinks they
can save the
: planet by using CFLs and switching their telly off at the
wall.
:
: 60 million people doing anything would easily have a big
effect.
:

No it would not, 60% of Zero percent is still a big fat ZERO, all
that has been achieved is 60 million people *thinking* they have
done something to "Save the World"...

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...

snip
:
: Yes, the car scrappage scheme was crazy.

It was on ecological grounds, it made every sense on economic
ground to try and get some money moving round within the motor
industry, their suppliers and financers.
--
Regards, Jerry.

JJ, I think we are in what is known as "violent agreement" here! At least,
pretty close to it.

SteveT

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:12:29 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

Have you heard of Pareto analysis? To over-simplify, you find out
what the big contributors are, and tackle them first, thus making a
big difference early on. If you want to make a big difference you
need to tackle the big stuff. My major concern is that the public
now thinks they can save the planet by using CFLs and switching
their telly off at the wall.

60 million people doing anything would easily have a big effect.

If the whole of the UK sank overnight, never to inconvenience another
electron, China's increase in electricity generation at present rates would
negate that in under a year.

So, 60 million people saving, say, even an unlikely quarter of their
domestic electricity consumption, which in itself is only a third of all the
electricity consumption in the UK, would be negated by China in under a
month. And China is just one of the countries of the world increasing its
power consumption year on year. Add in India, Brazil and Russia, and you're
probably talking of delaying global warming if everyone here 'did
something', by 10 days at most.

You may call that a 'big effect'. I call it trivial.

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...

The point is that the savings are much less than the green pundits claim.
Yes, there are savings, and any savings are worthwhile. We don't differ
there.
I agree with every word of your post (that I've snipped) and I applaud the
way you've expressed it. But are 'any' savings worthwhile? Everything has a
cost, and if a measure has a large cost in terms of the quality of life and
a very small benefit in terms of CO2 reduction, it might not be worthwhile.
We might be able to achieve the same degree of CO2 reduction by a less
painful method.

Bill

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:12:29 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

Have you heard of Pareto analysis? To over-simplify, you find out what
the
big contributors are, and tackle them first, thus making a big difference
early on. If you want to make a big difference you need to tackle the big
stuff. My major concern is that the public now thinks they can save the
planet by using CFLs and switching their telly off at the wall.

60 million people doing anything would easily have a big effect.

That's a ludicrously unscientific assertion.

Bill

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:12:29 +0100, Steve Thackery wrote:

Did you know that the figure used by the UK government in the car
scrappage white paper for the CO2 impact of manufacturing a new car is
ONE TENTH that claimed by Ford? If Ford are correct, and making a new
car actually generates ten times as much CO2 as the government believes,
then the car scrappage scheme would be an environmental faux pas.

er the car scrappage scheme isn't a "green" measure it's an economic
one to help the car companies through the downturn without giving
them a direct cash hand out.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:10:22 +0100, Jerry wrote:

... all that has been achieved is 60 million people *thinking* they have
done something to "Save the World"...

Yeah, someone using "Save the World" instead of "Save the Planet".
The planet will survive quite happily pretty much no matter we do to
it, the question is are we likely to be part of it? If we want to be
part of it we need to save our world. The planet will look after
itself in the long term, but that may well mean that we won't have
suitable conditions for survival, with or without technology.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sep 16, 4:13*pm, "Jerry"
wrote:

Christmas trees with no lights?

:
: Perfect application for rechargeable solarpowered
: LED lights.

In Australia!...

Which of the bit you snipped did you have difficulty with?

Non of it, unlike you (well, what I could understand, what are
"nones", I assume you mean Gnomes?...).

[Quoting corrected]

Har bloody har. Read it in context and it's quite clear that "the
nones" was a typo for "the ones". Try spelling "None" correctly before
complaining about other peoples typos.


Remember that most people in the UK locate their Christmas trees
inside the house and also have the lights on during the few hours

So what did people do before electric light was invented or before
they could afford cheap imported christmas tree lights?

I must admit, talk of fountains put me more in mind of civic schemes
than things in the home or garden.

of effective sunlight most people get (on a good day) at that
time of year (just after the winter equinox

There you go again, you see, none of us are perfect when it comes to
typing the right words ;-)

MBQ

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Everything has a cost, and if a measure has a large cost in terms of the
quality of life and a very small benefit in terms of CO2 reduction, it
might not be worthwhile. We might be able to achieve the same degree of
CO2 reduction by a less painful method.

I agree completely, and it opens up a whole new aspect to the debate. Take,
for instance, the Christmas illuminations in your local town. Or the
Christmas lights they put round the tree in the village green.

Most people would agree that they are beautiful and joyful, and a pleasure
to behold. But they generate CO2, and don't actually do anything very
useful, so from an environmental point of view they should be amongst the
first things to go.

Here in Nottingham, where I live, there is a large water feature in the
central square. It has a number of small fountains, plus other features to
do with the movement of water. I love it and it attracts lots of people who
stand and admire it, or sit nearby eating their lunchtime sandwiches.

But again, it isn't actually useful for anything, and no doubt uses quite a
bit of energy. So, again, from an environmental point of view it ought to
be switched off and paved over.

Museums and art galleries are pretty useless too. Maybe we should shut all
of those. Oh, and cinemas, mustn't forget them. And really, we don't
actually need tellies at all. We could stand around a piano and sing.

My point is that, by following the "don't produce CO2 wastefully or
unnecessarily" agenda single-mindedly, we may well end up with an
appallingly drab and joyless lifestyle. Do we really want to make those
sacrifices?

I'll lay my cards on the table, he I love what my car will do for me.
On-demand, anywhere-to-anywhere, any-time personal mobility is a truly
fabulous benefit of modern living, as far as I'm concerned. The lifestyle
cost to me of doing without it would be enormous.

I would like to see far more consideration being given to the very issue
Bill raises: the "benefits" of energy saving devices such as CFLs also have
associated lifestyle costs (inconveniently slow warm up, much dimmer than it
implies on the box). I wish the debate were more nuanced, such that these
lifestyle costs were properly acknowledged and factored in to the decision
making processes.

If we end up with low carbon but miserable lives, what was the point?

SteveT

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...

snip trolling

On 16/09/09 18:07, Zero Tolerance wrote:

"Steve Thackery" wrote:

you find out what the big contributors are, and tackle them first,
thus making a big difference early on.

60 million people doing anything would easily have a big effect.

If we assume 2/3 of the UK population have a mobile, and leave the
charger plugged in 24x7, when it only takes an hour to actually charge
the phone and wastes 500mW for the other 23 hours a day, the nation
could save about 170GWh over the course of a year, that sounds quite a
lot doesn't it? At least £21m worth of wasted electricity.

But given that the total UK electricity consumption in 2006 was
398,327GWh it would only represent a saving of 0.04% of the nation's
electricity consumption, does it still sound like a lot? For the sake of
50p a year I'll leave mine plugged in I think.

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...

snip
:
: If we end up with low carbon but miserable lives, what was the
point?
:

If the climate activists are to believed, a planet to live on,
being the devils advocate for a moment, do we prefer /death/
(probably slow, possibly painful as the planet fails) or a drab
'miserable' *life*...
--
Regards, Jerry.

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...

snip
:
: If we end up with low carbon but miserable lives, what was the
point?
:

If the climate activists are to believed, a planet to live on,
being the devils advocate for a moment, do we prefer /death/
(probably slow, possibly painful as the planet fails) or a drab
'miserable' *life*...
--
Regards, Jerry.

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...

8

Yes, the car scrappage scheme was crazy. Apropos of which, I recently
sent the following question to the scientific discussion programme
'Home Planet', but unfortunately they ducked it:

Where does it say they are saving CO2?
I don't remember anyone claiming it would.
It does reduce other pollution by significant amounts.

On 2009-09-16, Jerry wrote:

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...

snip
:
: If we end up with low carbon but miserable lives, what was the
point?
:

If the climate activists are to believed, a planet to live on,
being the devils advocate for a moment, do we prefer /death/
(probably slow, possibly painful as the planet fails) or a drab
'miserable' *life*...

But the population is rising at an unsustainable rate anyway.

Whatever we do is unable to reduce the CO2 emissions produced
by trying to keep up with an ever growing demand for energy
caused by an ever growing population.

If we just hypothetically killed 9/10ths of the population
(entirely at random, to avoid arguments about racism etc),
we'd be doing far more to ensure our children had a planet
to live on AND the ability to enjoy that life.

But slowly removing every "non-essential" CO2 producing
activity from our lifes, but still producing too much
CO2 and running out of resources and food... what
is the point?

The only "essential" part of life, pretty much by definition,
is reproduction. But that could well be what ends it...

--
David Taylor

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in
message
ll.co.uk...

snip
: The planet will look after
: itself in the long term, but that may well mean that we won't
have
: suitable conditions for survival, with or without technology.
:

Well that's a mute point, if man can survive in outer space, the
actual question will be how many could survive using the same
sort of technology here on earth, as long as the building blocks
of life survive then so could man...
--
Regards, Jerry.

"Owain" wrote in message
...
: On 16 Sep, 21:01, "Jerry" wrote:
: If the climate activists are to believed, a planet to live
on,
: being the devils advocate for a moment, do we prefer /death/
: (probably slow, possibly painful as the planet fails) or a
drab
: 'miserable' *life*...
:
: I don't think many people are actually going to die slow
painful
: deaths. Well, not in Britain. Life might be rather miserable in
low
: lying places in the developing countries or the USA, but in
Britain
: we'd just create a few New Towns in Glencoe or the Brecon
Beacons.
:

That would depend on how the climate changes, *for us* (as you
say) the problem will not be rising sea water levels per se, it
will be if we can carry on feeding the population, people could
well die of starvation in the UK if there are crop failures and
famine.
--
Regards, Jerry.

In uk.d-i-y David Taylor wrote:
On 2009-09-16, Jerry wrote:
: If we end up with low carbon but miserable lives, what was the
point?
:

If the climate activists are to believed, a planet to live on,
being the devils advocate for a moment, do we prefer /death/
(probably slow, possibly painful as the planet fails) or a drab
'miserable' *life*...

But the population is rising at an unsustainable rate anyway.

That's the really fundamental problem we have and very few people seem
to be addressing it.

--
Chris Green

er the car scrappage scheme isn't a "green" measure it's an economic
one to help the car companies through the downturn without giving
them a direct cash hand out.

The government justified it in a number of ways, including claiming that it
was environmentally friendly. Do a bit of googling and you will see the
published documentation. It includes claims as to how quickly the
initiative would save the additional CO2 used during manufacture of the
cars.

If the real figure is 60 years rather than 6 (I may recall that wrongly, but
it was about that), then it changes the whole thing, and it would almost
certainly not have been implemented. Could you imagine the political
outrage?

SteveT

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
Instead of pointing out how
drab life would be without it, perhaps you should ask yourself what
different sacrifices you would be willing to make to keep it?

Exactly my point!! Thank you. NOBODY in authority is asking that question,
and it needs asking! That's just what Bill was saying, too.

Your response shows all the symptoms of energy
addiction, just as theirs did of tobacco and alcohol addiction.

Of course I'm an energy addict! Who, honestly, can claim not to be? Can
you? Energy is lovely stuff, and lets us do all sorts of wonderful things.
We would all miss it dreadfully, so let's not pretend otherwise.

As far as I'm concerned, paving over that marvellous water feature in the
Old Market Square, Nottingham, would be a very sad loss indeed.

SteveT

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:18:29 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Stephen wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:38:14 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew
scribeth thus
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:43:54 -0700 (PDT), "alexander.keys1"
wrote:

There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy
due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are
on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to
save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy-
saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a
'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is
zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV
receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always
switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer
appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk.

They can't switch the power stations off overnight, so they may as
well power the 1W my TV takes to be in standby.

I seem to remember that some hydro electric plant is powered down and
some gas fired .. but coal is rather long winded to slow down and
restart..

basically anything that is high power and heat driven doesnt
appreciate lots of heating up and cooling down.

used to be some of the really big generators needed to be left
spinning while cooling off......

They use the spare overnight power to pump the water back up in a stored
hydro power station so that it's full in the morning when everyone turns
their kettles on, so it isn't wasted.

except you only get back maybe 75% of what you put into the pumping
during generation.

And then you lose some more pushing all the power to N Wales and
getting it back again to somewhere useful.


but it was very close to a couple of nuclear power stations (probably now
closed) so the distribution losses would actually be rather low.

it is still running, but nt for much longer
http://www.magnoxnorthsites.com/abou...ts-and-figures

even then the pumped scheme is a bit bigger scale than the local
nuclear station - Dinorwic can generate at over 2 GW.

http://www.fhc.co.uk/dinorwig.htm

all this green electricity that seems a lot more reliable than all
those dinky toy wind turbines....

tim


--
Regards

- replace xyz with ntl

Java Jive wrote:
But if, following your bad example, we say to the Chinese: "You are
producing too much CO2!" they will just say to us: "Per capita, you
produce twice as much as us! Don't lecture to us at least until
you've taken your own population in hand!"

We won't ever get out of this hole by pointing the finger at each
other crying like children: "It's not me, Miss, it's him!". The only
way we are ever going to get out of it is by acting together each to
do what we can. Your post is counter-productive to that process.

Well, I'm terribly sorry about that, but the point I was replying to was:

60 million people doing anything would easily have a big effect.

and that's what I dealt with.

The possibility of a global agreement, when China, India and the USA don't
seem in the least inclined to join in, seems pretty remote. If they don't
agree swingeing cuts and implement them, anything we do in Britain is
totally irrelevant, so it's pointless trying, and paying a high price for
doing so. It's like volunteering to starve ten years before anyone else
sees the need.

Moreover, if you think Britain carries any weight in this area, you're sadly
and utterly mistaken. Look at how small we are on the map. We have just 1%
of the world's population, and are responsible for just 2% of its pollution.
As President Mugabe said about Gordon Brown, we are just a tiny little dot.

Sure, we'll join in if and when the big boys organise themselves, but if
they don't we're doomed anyway, so we might as well party in the meantime.



On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:48:29 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

If the whole of the UK sank overnight, never to inconvenience another
electron, China's increase in electricity generation at present
rates would negate that in under a year.

So, 60 million people saving, say, even an unlikely quarter of their
domestic electricity consumption, which in itself is only a third of
all the electricity consumption in the UK, would be negated by China
in under a month. And China is just one of the countries of the
world increasing its power consumption year on year. Add in India,
Brazil and Russia, and you're probably talking of delaying global
warming if everyone here 'did something', by 10 days at most.

You may call that a 'big effect'. I call it trivial.